The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case in which the agency was told to verify a Thai mattress importer's data "insofar as the Department relied upon that data." Judge M. Miller Baker noted because the importer, Saffron Living Co., withdrew from the case and no remaining party opposes the remand results, the court will uphold the results and the associated 763.28% antidumping duty rate for Saffron.
The International Trade Commission isn't required to rule specifically on underselling in injury investigations -- it only needs to consider it, the Court of International Trade said last week. CIT also said overselling of a product by importers does not necessarily mean domestic producers’ prices haven't been impacted.
The International Trade Commission asked the Court of International Trade to temporarily redact its decision sustaining an injury determination on mattresses since the commission believes there to be business proprietary information in the opinion that may need to be redacted (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288).
The U.S. on Dec. 20 added an attorney to the massive Section 301 litigation currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government added Megan Grimball, assistant general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, bringing the number of government attorneys involved in the suit to nine. Grimball has worked at USTR since 2018 and, before that, as an attorney-adviser at the State Department.
An importer seeking to compel the government to provide addresses of former CBP employees and underacted versions of documents handed over during discovery didn't show the sufficient need for, or relevance of, either, DOJ said Dec. 20 (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).
CBP can't extend liquidation without giving a reason, a solar panel company argued at the Court of International Trade Dec. 14 (Greentech Energy Solutions v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00118.)
Exporter Kumar Industries will appeal a November Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners ownership interests in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). In the decision, the court sustained the rate, issued as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar prevented Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00622).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to revert to the calculation of a previously used land benchmark as part of a countervailing duty review. Judge Jane Restani said that since no parties contest the move, the court will sustain the agency's third remand results.
A paint sprayer company argued that the parts of its spray nozzles that control the flow of liquid paint are heat sinks, and are excluded from an antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).
The Commerce Department made no changes to the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review on exporters of South Korean carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, after a second remand in a case challenging the results of the 2018 review (Nucor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).